Mayor Bloomberg in New York seems to think he has his own personal army he can order to do whatever he wishes, irregardless of Constitutional protections. Case in point is the egregiously unconstitutional stop and frisk program. The only way this program survives is that it is generally applied only to the powerless. I would love to see the policy applied randomly, rather than just to poor blacks, with officers tomorrow performing random stop and frisk at, say, the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Fiftieth Street. The outcry from the not-so-powerless would be so incredible that the program likely would not survive another 24 hours.

MingoV:

A lawsuit (Floyd v. City of New York) challenging the stop and frisk program just ended after more than five years. (Civil court moves at a snail's pace.) The judge is expected to take a few months to generate her ruling. It is likely that the city will appeal if the ruling goes against the policy.

CraigNCowartEsq:

I have one for you. "How to End NSA Surveillance of Citizen's Phone Calls, Emails, Etc,"
Everybody in the country start randomly calling numbers in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Chechnya, etc, It would destroy any patterns the government is presently looking at, blurring the info, and making surveillance useless. The people could end the program without the politicians approval or their right to control the situation. Let's show Washington we control this, not them!

marque2:

Except there was an incredible crime problem in Harlem, to the point where tourists wouldn't even go to 125 Ave to see the Apollo any more. The frisk program started there, because that is where the crime was, and the program is an astounding success. There are visible cops at most corners of "downtown Harlem" and crime is down considerable. It was down so much in 1998 that the big complaint of blacks in the area was that property values were going up.

In fact because of the program Harlem is being completely revitalized, instead of projects, they now have folks restoring the brownstone buildings which are indigenous to the area.

Your want of "liberty" for the people of Harlem, will turn out to end up in the tyranny of the people of Harlem as the bad folks move back in and start terrorizing the people again.

Believe it or not, I don't believe the folks complaining are actually from the Harlem area where the program was instituted, but are outside agitators just looking for a fight.

marque2:

Michael Stack:

Marque2,

Crime has been dropping everywhere, not just NYC. Do you have any evidence that the drop was greater at the time stop & frisk was enacted, and that this larger drop didn't mirror other cities without stop & frisk?

Lastly, even if it had dropped, one would have to weigh that drop in crime against the civil liberties of those living in those areas affected by stop & frisk.

marque2:

actually I can't find specific dates when you the stop and frisk was started I New York City. The frisks are legal under federal law and the officer has to have reasonable suspicion. I do know that Guliani started the program of zero tolerance and local presence including talking to suspicious characters
. he also under Brat ton instituted a program to direct enforcement to areas with more crime
. Care dropped precipitously in the the 1990's when Guliani wasayor and he is credited for most of the drop in NY crime - though in the 2000s there were other factors at play like older demographics. keeping up the Guliani policies has continued to keep crime down.

other towns like LA who copied the NY model also have seen drops in crime beyond demographic influence.

marque2:

Something else to point out. The police to stop and frisk all over the city, even on Wall St. However if you look at the crime stats. Wall street is low, Lexington and 125th (Harlem) is still one of the 10 worst spots in the nation - so it would make sense that - especially with the policy of focusing where the crime is, which makes tons of sense, that there would be more frisking around 125th street than there would be on Wall Street.

Yup when I lived there I saw folks questioned by police everywhere.

So fu, your assertion is false, since the Wall St hanger outer types who are suspicious are being frisked already. And I think the rest of us who were hanging around there were more appreciative then you might think.

marque2:

marque2:

actually I can't find specific dates when you the stop and frisk was started I New York City. The frisks are legal under federal law and the officer has to have reasonable suspicion. I do know that Guliani started the program of zero tolerance and local presence including talking to suspicious characters

. he also under Brat ton instituted a program to direct enforcement to areas with more crime

. Care dropped precipitously in the the 1990's when Guliani wasayor and he is credited for most of the drop in NY crime - though in the 2000s there were other factors at play like older demographics. keeping up the Guliani policies has continued to keep crime down.

other towns like LA who copied the NY model also have seen drops in crime beyond demographic influence.

Sam L.:

MingoV:

"The frisks are legal under federal law and the officer has to have reasonable suspicion."

You have it backwards. The law enforcement agent must have reasonable suspicion (being black in a crime-ridden area is not adequate). If so, then frisking is "legal" but not constitutional (no one gives a damn about that today).

marque2:

It was deemed constitutional in 1968 per the supreme court. Please look up the details that are in the link I provided in my previous post. Lexington and 125 the has the highest crime rate in new York. It should have the most frisks of suspicious folk. It is merely a coincidence that the area is mostly black. Wall st area has proportionately less crime so fewer frisks go on there.

Maybe instead of assuming racism all the time, you should instead wonder why black areas seem to in general have more crime.

Michael Stack:

Before we start arguing over whether stop & frisk is legal or not, we should figure out whether strop & frisk is even effective. In my view stop & frisk probably isn't effective, and based on my reading of Marque2's response, it sounds as if he is unable to provide evidence that it is (maybe it is effective, but Marque2 hasn't found the evidence - I am skeptical).

Given that the NYC cops harass lots of law-abiding citizens in their pursuit of criminals, if they aren't adding value we should stop with stop & frisk based solely on efficiency grounds, let alone liberty/civil rights grounds.

If we can prove that stop & frisk is effective, we can then debate whether the trade-offs involved make sense. Otherwise we don't even need to go down that road.

perlhaqr:

mahtso:

I've read that the program should more accurately be called "Stop, Question, and Frisk" and that the questioning is important because many who are stopped are never frisked (Whether this affects the Constitutionality, I don't purport to know)

morganovich:

perlhaqr:

Yes, but that only works if the people who could already end the program by simply ordering the police to not do it any more, instead chose to order the police to change their targeting and piss off a lot of people they don't need to otherwise piss off. Which, if they wanted to end the program, they could do by just ending it.

marque2:

marque2:

I am not your Google hoar. You might want to read up about Guliani, Brat ton, and crime stats of NYC by googling yourself before you make your grand statements. Before those two came in, NY was like Chicago is today.

mlhouse:

Technically, I can make up any word, and irregardless is no different (and is, unfortunately, fairly widely used).

From Merriam –Webster:

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Please substantiate your point better next time, regardless of your belief.

Mac:

Rick C:

This is a fascinating post. Warren's advocacy of frisking people randomly equates to an endorsement of the TSA's willful blindness: "we don't have any idea whatsoever who could be a terrorist, so we'll frisk nuns and 5 year old children and old men with colostomy bags."

Michael Stack:

I've read plenty Marque2, and all I've seen is anecdotal evidence that crime dropped when 'stop & frisk' was enacted. However, I am open to the possibility that 'stop & frisk' really did contribute to the drop in crime (are you equally open to the possibility it didn't?) The problem is, the crime rate was dropping all around the country at the same time. So how do you disentangle the two effects?

You sounded quite confident you knew that that the drop was attributable to 'stop & frisk', so I reasonably assumed you had evidence proving so. If you do, please share it. If not, you should concede that you can't be sure 'stop & frisk' had anything to do w/ the crime drop in NYC.

Repeatedly pointing to NYC and saying, "See?" doesn't cut it, nor does implying I can't be bothered to search for myself.